Massachusetts' highest court has ruled that a state law restricting secret videos or photographs of nude or partially nude people does not ban "upskirting"—taking covert pictures under a woman's dress or skirt in public.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

What's being said

The sun, with his great eye, Sees not so much as I ; And the moon, all silver, proud, Might as well be in a cloud.

And the spring -- the spring ! I lead the life of a king ! Couch‘d in the teeming grass, I spy each pretty lass.

I look where no one dares, And I stare where no one stares, And when the night is nigh, Lambs bleat my lullaby.

not available

Mar 07, 2014

Excuse me, but sticking your smartphone under my skirt is an offensive act, it is an assault. Women and girls have been abused on public transportation for many many decades. Whether the MA statute is misplaced when applied to "upskirting" is of course a different question, and if that is in fact the case, the legislature better get to it asap. When a lewd abusive physical act gets a name "upskirting?" it‘s time to confront it appropriately.

not available

Mar 07, 2014

Some of the stupides garbage I‘ve ever heard of . -but happy to see MICHAEL ROBERTSON‘s name publicized. At least his privacy isn‘t upheld when ours isn‘t ! BTW, this confirms the legitimacy and seriousness of the issues put forth by "Hollaback"--Bravo for their website and the fact that theirs- I mean ours (I‘m 62 y.o.) --is one of the most progressive social movements I;ve seen in a long time.

not available

Mar 06, 2014

It seems that this is an example of the pedestrian limitations of U.S. law. My understanding of law is that that it usually interpreted and applied very carefully and very much by the letter. Certainly, the laws in Massachusetts will be updated to better address this specific sort of offense.

Unfortunately, it appears the accused in this situation was lucky in his timing and may get off on a technicality (no pun intended).

not available

Mar 06, 2014

Crazy ruling. It‘s the same as groping. Perhaps an "over-toeing" of the line of the law?

not available

Mar 06, 2014

"[B]ecause the MBTA is a public transit system operating in a public place and uses cameras, the two alleged victims here were not in a place and circumstance where they reasonably would or could have had an expectation of privacy, Associate Justice Margot Botsford wrote."

WHAT!!?!!!?!! This is an outrage. Botsford should be ashamed to call herself a woman.How are women supposed to dress without invasion of privacy -- Always wear pants like a man?